Yazan Brahim

Sultan Qaboos University, Oman

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i1-04

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

Thanks to the ever-developing educational technologies, more and more educational institutions and testing organizations around the world have been delivering their testing events through computer-based formats. As far as language assessment is concerned, these developments have led to questions on all sorts of validity being raised by educational and assessment researchers, especially regarding the speaking skill. This exploratory paper compares and contrasts the pros and cons of computer-based and face-to-face assessment of speaking from a communicative view of language, by exploring what exactly needs to be assessed in speaking, the effects of the delivery mode and the differences between computerized and human rating. The findings are that face-to-face assessment of speaking is a much more valid format than computer-based assessment from a communicative point of view, but that the latter can provide a partial answer to the bulk administration problem in contexts such as placement or exit tests in educational institutions.

KEYWORDS:

computer-based assessment, face-to-face assessment, communicative testing, communicative language ability, interactional ability

REFERENCES

1) Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in Practice, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

2) Brown, A. (1993). The role of test-taker feedback in the test development process: test takers' reactions to a tape-mediated test of proficiency in spoken Japanese. Language Testing, 10, 277–304

3) Brown, A., & McNamara, T. (2004). “The devil is in the detail”: Researching gender issues in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 524–538.

4) Brown, H. D. (2003). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. White Plains, NY: Longman.

5) Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: OUP.

6) Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1-48

7) Clark, J. L. D. (1986). Handbook for the development of tape-mediated ACTFL/ILR scale-based tests of speaking proficiency in the less commonly taught languages, Washington, DC: Centre for Applied Linguistics. [Google Scholar]

8) Carroll, B. J. (1983). Communicative language tests: Tasks, enabling skills, formats, and measurement criteria. World Language English, 2(1), 37-39.

9) Dean, M. (2008). Man or machine: Korean stakeholders' views on oral proficiency assessment (Unpublished master's dissertation), Lancaster, United Kingdom: Lancaster University. [Google Scholar]

10) Elliott, M. (2010). The expression of affect in spoken English, Cambridge ESOL: Research Notes, 42 (4),16-21

11) Iwashita, N. (1996). The validity of the paired interview format in oral performance assessment. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 5(2), 51–65.

12) Iwashita, N. (2021). UNDERSTANDING THE CONSTRUCT OF SPEAKING PROFICIENCY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM-BASED ASSESSMENT. European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 10(1), 63-78. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/understanding-construct-speaking-proficiency/docview/2516295372/se-2?accountid=27575

13) Katsumasa, S. (1997). Communicative language testing: Principles and problems. English Review, 12, 3-24.

14) Kiddle, T. & Kormos, J. (2011). The Effect of Mode of Response on a Semidirect Test of Oral Proficiency, Language assessment Quarterly, 8 (4), 342-360

15) Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372.

16) Larsen-Freeman, D. & L. Cameron. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

17) Luoma, S. (1997). Comparability of a tape-mediated and a face-to-face test of speaking: A triangulation study (Unpublished licenciate thesis). Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/11733/337.pdf?sequence=1

18) Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing Speaking, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

19) Nakatsuhara, F. (2006). The impact of proficiency level on conversational styles in paired speaking tests. Cambridge ESOL Research Notes, 25, 15-19

20) Nakatsuhara, F. (2011). Effects of test-taker characteristics and the number of participants in group oral tests. Language testing, 28 (4), 483-508

21) Nakatsuhara, F., Inoue, C., Berry, V. and Galaczi, E. (2017). Exploring performance across two delivery modes for the IELTS Speaking Test: face-to-face and video-conferencing delivery (Phase 2). IELTS Partnership Research Papers, 3, 1-74. Available at https://www.ielts.org/teaching-and-research/research-reports

22) Mousavi, S. A. (2007). Development and validation of a multimedia computer package for the assessment of oral proficiency of adult ESL learners: Implications for score comparability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Australia, Queensland: Griffith University. [Google Scholar]

23) Plough, I., Banerjee. J, & Iwashita, N. (2018). Interactional competence: Genie out of the bottle. Language Testing. 35(3), 427-445.

24) O'Loughlin, K. (2001). Studies in Language Testing: The equivalence of direct and semi-direct speaking tests, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

25) O’Sullivan, B. (2000). Exploring gender and oral proficiency interview performance. System, 28, 373–386

26) Qian, D. (2009). Comparing direct and semi-direct modes for speaking assessment: affective effects on test takers. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6, 113–125. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

27) Shohamy, E. (1994). The validity of direct versus semi-direct oral tests. Language Testing, 11, 99–123

28) Streeter, L., Bernstein, J., Foltz, P., & DeLand, D. (2011). Pearson’s Automated Scoring of Writing, Speaking, and Mathematics, Pearson White Papers [Online], June 2011, available at: https://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/PearsonsAutomatedScoringofWritingSpeakingandMathematics.pdf

29) Van Moere, A. (2006). Validity evidence in a university group oral test. Language Testing, 23(4), 411-440.

30) Weir, C. J. (1988). Communicative language testing with special reference to English as a foreign language. Exeter Linguistic Studies, 11, 1-241.

31) Wesche, M. B. (1983). Communicative testing in a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 67(1), 41-55.

VOlUME 06 ISSUE 01 JANUARY 2023